Learning and Teaching
Committee
LTC12-M6
Minutes
of the Meeting of the Committee held on 13 December 2012
Members: Prof.
Morag Bell (in the Chair) Dr Brian
Jarvis
Dr Keith Pond Dr John McCardle
Prof. Memis Acar Prof.
Ray Dawson
Prof. Ruth Kinna Dr
Lorraine Cale
Dr Jennifer Nutkins Dr
Vincent Dwyer
Lazar Zindovic Nigel Thomas
Prof. John Feather Dr Phil Richards
Dr Jane Horner Prof. Simon Austin
In attendance: Rob Pearson, Ruth Jenkins (for item 12/64)
and Caroline Smith (for item 12/64)
Apologies: Dr Robert Hamilton,
Ellie Read, Jan Tennant
12/73 Minutes
Received: LTC12-M4
1.
The Minutes of the Meeting of the
Committee held on 25 October 2012 were confirmed.
12/74 Matters Arising from
the Minutes not otherwise appearing on the Agenda
12/64 Minimum Online Presence Audit
Charles Shields
would be invited to the Committee in Semester 2 to discuss the minimum online
presence.
12/66 Report from the BUE Validation Sub-Committee
At its
meeting on 7 November 2012, Senate approved the recommendation of the Committee
not to validate any further cohorts beyond the cohort entering the preparatory
year in autumn 2013.
12/75 Business from the Chair
1. OFSTED Visit
There had recently been a successful Ofsted review of the Foundation
Art programme in the School of the Arts.
2. UKBA Visit
The UKBA would be making a
compliance visit to the University on 8 January 2013.
3. Annual Programme Review
There had been six School APR meetings to date, with the remaining to
take place after Christmas. The meetings
had worked well and there had been very open and constructive discussions. The Programme Presidents had attended for the
first time this year and this addition to the process was working well.
12/76 ‘Transforming the
library’: the 2012/13 Loughborough University Library Refurbishment
Noted:
1. A major
redevelopment of the Pilkington Library was being undertaken in 2012/13. Changes included:
·
Incorporation of Level 4 into the Library
·
Improvement to the quality and quantity of learning
spaces
·
Enhanced access to Information and Communication
Technologies (ICT)
·
Re-location of PC Clinic from Haslegrave
to the Library
·
Increased number and quality of toilets
·
More effective accommodation for the High Demand
Collection
·
More impressive entrance to the Library
·
Introduction of rolling shelving on Levels 1 and 2 to
enable the Library to store all material without need of an external store
2.
The work would commence in December 2012 with the
intention of being completed by the end of September 2013. Preparatory work would be initially
concentrated over the Christmas and Easter vacations, but the scale and volume
of work would mean the Library would close from around 22June 2013 to 30
September 2013
3. The Library and
the wider University would ensure alternative access to Library services was
provided on campus.
4. Ruth Jenkins and
colleagues would be open to invitations from Schools to discuss the
implications of the redevelopment.
12/77 Student Module Feedback
Received: LTC12-62, LTC12-63
Noted:
1. It was an
expectation of the Code of Practice on Student Module Feedback Questionnaires that
Deans of School/Heads of Department or their nominee would make a written
report to the appropriate SSLC on the quantitative outcome of questions 1-12, detailing
any actions taken in response to low scores.
A copy of this report should also be sent to the VP Education.
2. Schools would
welcome the creation of a LUSI report that would standardise the presentation
of the outcomes of questions 1-12 for the SSLC.
Schools would still be expected to provide a written report detailing
any actions taken in response to low scores.
3. There existed a variation
in the ‘low score threshold’ that Schools used to determine whether the
outcomes required further investigation.
The threshold ranged from scores of 3.0 to 4.0, with practice also varying
on whether action was required when one or more questions fell below this threshold.
4. Around 7% of
feedback questionnaires were received by the Print Unit well after the deadline
in the Code of Practice.
5. IT
Services staff were working with WEDC to pilot an online version of the
questionnaire for their distance learning provision. The results would be
fed into LUSI and presented in the same format as the paper based
questionnaire.
Agreed:
6.
Phil Richards
would convene a Working Group to:
·
specify a LUSI
report that would standardise the presentation of
data to SSLCs
·
review current
practice in regard to the ‘low score threshold’. Making a recommendation to a future LTC for a
common ‘threshold’ across the institution and recommending whether action
should be taken in response to individual questions or when several questions
fell below the threshold
·
review how the
module evaluation form can be used to facilitate project/dissertation
evaluation
7.
The membership of
the Working Group would include Lazar Zindovic, Ruth
Kinna and Simon Austin.
8. To ensure
consistency across the University it was agreed that the University would adopt
a ‘low score threshold’, below which Schools would be expected investigate
further. A threshold of 3.5 was
proposed, pending the recommendations of the Working Group.
9.
AD(T)s would remind their Schools
that all completed forms must arrive for processing at the Print Unit no later
than one week after the end of the semester in question.
10. The stand-alone project/dissertation evaluation was not
used at all during 2011/12 and would be discontinued.
11. The Print Unit would dispose of all paper questionnaires
as confidential material once they had been safely scanned into LUSI.
12/78 Code of Practice for Staff-Student Liaison
Committees
Receive: LTC12-P64
Noted:
1. The Code of
Practice had been updated following consultation with Schools and the Students’
Union.
Agreed:
2. Minor amendments
would be made to the draft Code in light of comments made at the meeting.
3. Approval of the
Code would be put on hold pending clarification of the responsibilities of
Schools in regard to the election of student representatives.
4. The Secretary
would undertake further consultation to determine the process for the election
of student representatives to SSLCs. A
report would be made to the next Committee, with a view to formally approving
the revised Code of Practice.
12/79 Programme and Module approval and review
8.1 Review of Section 3 of the AQPH: Approval
for New or Revised Programmes and Modules
Received: LTC12-P65
Noted:
1. The proposed revisions
to the AQPH policy for the approval of new or revised programmes and modules
would simplify and speed up the approval process. The revisions included:
·
revising the category of
proposals that require approval by Operations Committee
·
revising the category of
proposals that require approval by CSC
·
bringing forward the
point at which a new programme can be publicised
·
revising the forms for
submitting proposals to Operations Committee and CSC
·
the adoption of a
two-stream approach for approving immediate effect changes
Agreed:
2. The revised
policy was approved for immediate implementation, subject to minor amendments
agreed at the meeting.
8.2 New
Programme Specification Template
Received: LTC12-P66
Noted:
1.
Synthesising the current
programme specification and programme regulations template into a single, more
concise document, would reduce unnecessary duplication and provide a concise
overview of a programme for internal and external audiences.
2.
Programme teams should
be encouraged to articulate the distinctiveness of a programme in the programme
aims and learning outcomes.
3.
Schools should realise
the potential for utilising the ‘programme aims’ statement for other purposes,
such as in the prospectus.
4.
In formulating the new
programme specification template, due regard had been given to ensuring that it
was compliant with relevant guidance provided by the QAA.
Agreed:
5. The Committee
approved the new template for programme specifications.
6. The Teaching
Centre would be asked to revise the ‘Guide to the Preparation of Programme
Specifications’. The guide should
facilitate Schools in articulating the distinctiveness of the programme within the
programme aims and learning outcomes.
7. The new template
would be used for all new programme proposals from this point forward. Proposals currently under preparation for the
meeting of CSC in January 2013 that had been prepared using the old format would
not be revised in advance of CSC. The Academic
Registry would convert them into the new format following the approval process.
8. The Academic Registry
would investigate the process for converting all existing programme
specifications and regulations into the new format, and the possibility of using
the web-based Content Management System to manage the approval and publication
process. Schools were advised not to
make any changes to existing specifications until advice had been provided by the
Academic Registry in the new year.
8.3 Review of the Processes Involved in the
Annual Review of Programme and Module Specifications
Received: LTC12-P67
Noted:
1. A half-day
workshop involving staff from across the University had been held on 30 October
2012 to discuss the processes involved in the annual review of programme and
module specifications.
2. The Committee
supported the recommendations that work should be undertaken to define what
information is needed, by whom and when, and to investigate the implementation
of an online approval system.
Agreed:
3. Anne Mumford
would lead a Working Group to develop the recommendations in the review. Membership would include Ray Dawson, Jane
Horner, and colleagues from the School administration, Academic Registry and
Marketing.
4. The annual update
process for 2012/13 would remain unchanged.
The deadline for programme and module submissions would be 15 April
2013.
12/80 Report of the Working Group to Review
Practice and Guidance on Plagiarism Detection
Received: LTC12-P68
Noted:
1. The Working Group
had reviewed practice and guidance on plagiarism detection with a view to
making recommendations to ensure consistency of practice across the University,
and to identify and disseminate good practice.
2. Chris Dunbobbin was thanked for his work in servicing the Working
Group.
Agreed:
3.
A Code of Practice on Plagiarism Detection was approved,
subject to further work to determine procedural issues in regard to
recommendations on:
·
the provision of central sessions on good referencing and
plagiarism avoidance
·
the proposal to require students found guilty of a first
offence to take an online plagiarism awareness course
4.
Amendments to
Regulation XVIII were approved, subject to formal approval of the
proposed changes to the Regulations at Senate.
12/81 Learning and Teaching Development Plan
Noted:
1. Members were
thanked for their input into the drafting of the Development Plan.
2. It was important
for all Schools to have identified potential areas for development as any items not included in the Development Plan that required
resources would not be supported in the 2013/14 budget.
12/82 Review of Information Science, Information
Systems and Information Management (RISM)
Received: SEN12-P131
Agreed:
1.
The Committee approved the transfer of ownership of
Department of Information Science programmes, with effect from 1 August 2013,
as detailed in section 3.3 of the paper.
12/83 Assessing English Language Competency for
International Students to ensure they meet minimum UKBA requirements
Approved: LTC12-P69
12/84 Preparing a
Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) for Students Admitted onto an
English Language Pre-sessional Course
Approved: LTC12-P70
12/85 Minutes of the Sub-Committees:
1.
Learning
and Teaching Futures Group – 4 October 2012
Received: LTC12-P71
2.
Teaching
Partnerships Sub-Committee – 8 October 2012
Received: LTC12-P72
12/86 Any Other Business
1. University
Open Days 2013
Noted:
1. Concern had been
raised that a change the date for the open day that had been proposed for June
2013 had resulted in some staff being unavailable due to other commitments.
2. The original date
proposed for the events had been reviewed due to a clash with the date that
contracts end in a number of halls of residence on campus. It was expected that many students and their
parents would be leaving University on this date. Following consultation across the University,
it had been decided to change the date of the events to Friday 5 July and
Saturday 6 July 2013.
2. Return
of exam scripts to students
Noted:
1. The Committee
confirmed that it was not University policy to provide students with copies of
exam scripts. However, students were entitled on request to a copy of all
comments made by both internal and external examiners.
Agreed:
2. The Secretary
would circulate to members the University data protection guidance in regard to
exam scripts.
3. The Secretary
would meet with the VP Education to determine whether existing policy and
practice on the provision of feedback on examinations was in accordance with
student expectations. They would report
back to the Committee later this session.
3.
Employability Events
Noted:
1. The Careers and
Employability Centre was organising an ‘Employability Summit’, that would
provide an opportunity for sharing best practice both inside and outside of the
curriculum. The event would be held on
19 March 2013, with invitations to be sent to Schools in due course.
2. The School of the
Arts, English and Drama would be holding an ‘Employability Week’ from Tuesday
29 to Thursday 31st January 2013.
The event would offer three full days of employability-related
activities to help students of the school make progress in planning their careers.
12/87 Dates of Meetings 2012/13
7
February 2013, 9.30am, Hazlerigg Committee Room 201.0.09
21 March
2013, 2.00pm, Hazlerigg Committee Room 201.0.09
25 April
2013, 9.30am, Hazlerigg Committee Room 201.0.09
6 June
2013, 2.00pm, Hazlerigg Committee Room 201.0.09
Author – Rob Pearson
Date – December 2012
Copyright © Loughborough University. All rights reserved